Over Ten Years, Bush Tax Cuts Cost 2.5 Times As Much As House Democrats’ Health Care Plan
Over Ten Years, Bush Tax Cuts Cost 2.5 Times As Much As House Democrats’ Health Care Plan
One of the main criticisms opponents of health reform have been wielding is that it is simply too expensive. “The costly government-run health care plan put forth by President Obama and Speaker Pelosi is just the latest in a long line of expensive Democratic experiments,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has said that, “unfortunately, the path we are taking in Washington right now is to simply spend another trillion dollars of taxpayer money to further expand the role of the federal government.”
However, as a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) pointed out, “many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is ‘too costly are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts,” which cost almost $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted (2001-2010). Comparably, the health care reform plan proposed by Democrats in the House costs about $1 trillion over ten years. And while the Democratic plan goes toward reforming a broken health care system, “a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits [of the Bush tax cuts] will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.”
Both Boehner and Hatch voted for the Bush tax cuts across the board. So as CTJ put it, “their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities.”
And those priorities seem very misplaced, considering this new analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which shows how much of the last economic expansion flowed to those at the top of the income scale:
Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. During those years, the Piketty-Saez data also show, the inflation-adjusted income of the top 1 percent of households grew more than ten times faster than the income of the bottom 90 percent of households.
Plus, we’re talking about tax cuts that significantly contributed to skyrocketing deficits versus a health care bill that is required by the budget framework to be deficit neutral (through savings within the system or raising new revenues), so those supporting the former but opposing the latter because of costs are doubly hypocritical.
6 Responses to “Over Ten Years, Bush Tax Cuts Cost 2.5 Times As Much As House Democrats’ Health Care Plan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Tax Cuts = Money TO the People equals More Freedom
September 10th, 2009 at 11:02 amAdditional Government spending = Money From the People Less Freedom
It is typical of leftists to view any funds Not taxed from the public as ‘lost revenue.’ But unfortunately for them, the government does not de facto own all money, capital, and resources, at least not in a republic.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:39 am“Liar!” These were not funds “not taxed to the public”.. these were funds which were SUPPOSED to be taxed based on income taxes which were given back. Essentially.. George Bush took Money the gov’t was owed and gave it away. That is an expenditure….
September 10th, 2009 at 1:42 pm“Intelligence Wanted” — the gov’t is not SUPPOSED to tax any more than is “necessary.” Citizens of the United States provide money to the gov’t for necessary operations. Any extra money that the gov’t collects that is not already allocated to specific programs belongs to the PEOPLE, not the gov’t. Whether or not those specific programs are government’s responsibility is a whole different argument…
September 10th, 2009 at 8:58 pmThis article demonstrates the lefts total lack of understanding of taxes. When money is returned to the people they spend more. When people spend more, business make more and tax revenues actuall increase. Look at history people. The last 4 times tax rates were cut (JFK, Nixon, Reagon, and Bush) the tax revenues actually increased.
September 10th, 2009 at 9:29 pmThis is a silly article.
1. The true cost of healthcare proposal is at least $2 trillion. The implementation delay and ramp-up buy but temporary relief.
2. The tax cut created economic growth that then produces at least some offsetting tax revenues. The President’s own advisors have written scholarly papers asserting a 3% GDP expansion for every 1% tax cut (in proportion to GDP). If 20% of that expansion were subject to the tax man then the “bill” for the tax cut is at least 50% lower.
3. Still trying to figure out how anyone can charge that a tax cut costs something. It isn’t spending people.
4. The tax cut in question lifted us out of a recession. Returning the taxpayer’s money to the taxpayer provided more efficient and immediate stimlus than the more recent $800 billion bill which is government direction ($1.1 trillion with financing costs). But the tax cut isn’t okay?
5. The Dems have controlled Congress since 2006. Isn’t it a bit late to disavow these tax cuts now? If tax cuts are as elective as this healthcare proposal, then let us roll them back now. Where are all those legislative proposals from Nancy’s wing to do this? I must have missed them.
All this extends to the other faux comparison, Iraq / Afghanistan Wars, with some additional comments:
1. Our President and his party are currently in the process of dramatically ramping up a war that will take much longer to prosecute than the Iraq War. I would expect him therefore to save elsewhere. He is not.
2. The greatest responsibility (only responsibility) our Federal Government has in this incredibly shrinking world is national security. Comparing elective (healthcare insurance) with mandatory spending (warfare) rings hollow to me. This of course assumes you believe that preemption saves lives in the long-run. We’ll put this theory to the test with Iran, no?
September 12th, 2009 at 7:10 am